This is a stupid question but I'm going to ask anyway thread

[Deoridhe]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Deoridhe

The dictionary isn't a source. It's a record. As we have said. As the history of dictionaries and how they are made shows.

this is kind of misleading. No one's going to argue that Roman period censuses of Egypt are in fact records, but they are also sources, in that they provide us evidence of the common populace practicing incest. A dictionary can be a source, it's just not one, or at least not a good one, in this case.

...okay, point. It's a source of common usage for words up until approximately 10-15 years before the publish date of the dictionary, and can be used as such. More accurate?

We could get into introduced bias via the sources used for words, who is published and recorded, etc... but that seems unnecessarily nitpicky even in this context.  

[Alud Land Syne]

TeaDidikai

To the left of the post if you're on Monzilla.

How did I miss that? It is right (actually left) there all colorful and everything. Gah! I am so unobservant.... xp

Quote:

Ironically enough, Josh is the shorter version of Joshua, which is the Anglicized version of Yeshua, which is the name ascribed to Christ.

Since in popular Christian thought Yeshua is YHVH, that would be what I would consider an uncanny moment.

Wow, I just liked the name.

Quote:

Her name is only revealed to those initiated into the cult. There are place holder names that differ from coven to coven used in public ritual though. Basically, her name is a Mystery.

Oh, I see, it's classified information. I guess it would be the same for The Horned God.

Quote:

Nothing to be sorry about.

Well, I know who to go to if I have any more questions. biggrin  

[TeaDidikai]

Alud Land Syne

How did I miss that? It is right (actually left) there all colorful and everything. Gah! I am so unobservant.... xp

It's okay. I'm the same way.

Quote:

Wow, I just liked the name.

I had a similar experience myself actually.

Curious coincidence, no?

Quote:

Oh, I see, it's classified information. I guess it would be the same for The Horned God.

Yep.

Quote:

Well, I know who where to go to if I have any more questions. biggrin

Fixed.  

[TeaDidikai]

Deoridhe

For people who are actually interested in educating themselves, Unthinking Eurocentrism in tandem with Afrocentrism is serving to be a wonderful way to help me rethink my unconscious biases and re-examine all levels of education I've had and how it's been skewed. I'll probably be making extensive use of them in my Thesis, and I highly recommend them to anyone who wants to learn. Of course, the influence of Afrocentrism must be understood to only be speaking about the culture of US citizens descended from the Africans who were sold as slaves and stripped of their culture, and now are trying to regain something not even remembered but carried on in tradition. Generalizations to similar or different populations on other continents who have suffered from colonialism and Eurocentrism does not follow.

It's interesting stuff- especially since my experience with Afrocentrism is largely filtered through Eurocentrism.

I had an interesting experience when talking about ethnic slurs with previous bosses. I received a lecture on slavery and he blinked at me when I asked him how he felt about the slavery of non-Africans such as the Rroma, and the abuse suffered by so-called indentured servants such as some of the Frontier Irish who were treated as chattel.  

[Deoridhe]

TeaDidikai

Deoridhe

For people who are actually interested in educating themselves, Unthinking Eurocentrism in tandem with Afrocentrism is serving to be a wonderful way to help me rethink my unconscious biases and re-examine all levels of education I've had and how it's been skewed. I'll probably be making extensive use of them in my Thesis, and I highly recommend them to anyone who wants to learn. Of course, the influence of Afrocentrism must be understood to only be speaking about the culture of US citizens descended from the Africans who were sold as slaves and stripped of their culture, and now are trying to regain something not even remembered but carried on in tradition. Generalizations to similar or different populations on other continents who have suffered from colonialism and Eurocentrism does not follow.

It's interesting stuff- especially since my experience with Afrocentrism is largely filtered through Eurocentrism.

I had an interesting experience when talking about ethnic slurs with previous bosses. I received a lecture on slavery and he blinked at me when I asked him how he felt about the slavery of non-Africans such as the Rroma, and the abuse suffered by so-called indentured servants such as some of the Frontier Irish who were treated as chattel.

Heh, yeah. People in the US are very ignorant about a lot of this.

The book Afrocentrism is written by a US professor but from the pov, he says, of Afrocentrism. He's gotten a lot of critique even from other African American studies professors, and the most recent edition started with a rebuttle of those critiques. Very interesting stuff.  

[TeaDidikai]

Deoridhe

TeaDidikai

Deoridhe

For people who are actually interested in educating themselves, Unthinking Eurocentrism in tandem with Afrocentrism is serving to be a wonderful way to help me rethink my unconscious biases and re-examine all levels of education I've had and how it's been skewed. I'll probably be making extensive use of them in my Thesis, and I highly recommend them to anyone who wants to learn. Of course, the influence of Afrocentrism must be understood to only be speaking about the culture of US citizens descended from the Africans who were sold as slaves and stripped of their culture, and now are trying to regain something not even remembered but carried on in tradition. Generalizations to similar or different populations on other continents who have suffered from colonialism and Eurocentrism does not follow.

It's interesting stuff- especially since my experience with Afrocentrism is largely filtered through Eurocentrism.

I had an interesting experience when talking about ethnic slurs with previous bosses. I received a lecture on slavery and he blinked at me when I asked him how he felt about the slavery of non-Africans such as the Rroma, and the abuse suffered by so-called indentured servants such as some of the Frontier Irish who were treated as chattel.

Heh, yeah. People in the US are very ignorant about a lot of this.

The book Afrocentrism is written by a US professor but from the pov, he says, of Afrocentrism. He's gotten a lot of critique even from other African American studies professors, and the most recent edition started with a rebuttle of those critiques. Very interesting stuff.

Good that he addressed the critiques. Were they convincing?  

[Deoridhe]

TeaDidikai

Good that he addressed the critiques. Were they convincing?

To me, yes.

he also referenced feminism and the importance of different movements for justice cooperating, especially where their populations overlapped, which I liked.  

[TeaDidikai]

Deoridhe

TeaDidikai

Good that he addressed the critiques. Were they convincing?

To me, yes.

he also referenced feminism and the importance of different movements for justice cooperating, especially where their populations overlapped, which I liked.

That's good. I can't identify with any given Rights moment beyond the general Civil Rights.  

[CuAnnan]

Sociological definition of Racism, provided by Wikipedia, heavily cited and supported
You are a racist.
There is no more arguing to be done about this. It is the plain and simple truth.  

[Fiddlers Green]

Here's a stupid question, how much right to whining does someone have for wrongs inflicted upon their ancestors?
I'm not talking about avenging, and I'm not talking about seeking to have history set strait on the matter, I'm talking about siting wrongs done to ancestors as grounds for their own lack of activity. Beyound that, what about group victimization? For example, do all persons of African heritage living in the U.S. have a right to vengeance/justice against the Dutch who brought some African slaves over? Or, do all members of the GLBT community have rights against the French for the Vichy regimes active support of round ups during WW2?  

[IH_Zero]

Fiddlers Green

Here's a stupid question, how much right to whining does someone have for wrongs inflicted upon their ancestors?
I'm not talking about avenging, and I'm not talking about seeking to have history set strait on the matter, I'm talking about siting wrongs done to ancestors as grounds for their own lack of activity. Beyound that, what about group victimization? For example, do all persons of African heritage living in the U.S. have a right to vengeance/justice against the Dutch who brought some African slaves over? Or, do all members of the GLBT community have rights against the French for the Vichy regimes active support of round ups during WW2?

Speaking from the GLBT perspective, I feel that the past should not be forgotten, and should be held up as things that should be fought against and prevented from happening again.

I do however, think that there is a limit. While prejudice and privilege need to be fought and taken down, I don't feel that someone should be punished for their ancestor's actions. Only their own. I also find apologizing on behalf on one's ancestors' actions....more baffling, than anything else. If one wants to, more power to them (though I don't really understand it. Anything my ancestors did is on them, and it's not my place to apologize for them), but I don't see the point in forcing it out of someone. That only further reinforces bad feelings towards the group soliciting the apology, that have been instilled in the current generations by their elders.  

[Recursive Paradox]

guardian_rose

No. You did not post any proof. Gave a link to an article of assumption written by Dr. Enoch. There was no empirical evidence what so ever. This is the second time I have said this. Nothing has really been proven.

So you didn't spot the other post I put up with the two studies involving racial privilege? Including their published usage of the terms in the way we're using them? Or the fact that Dr. Enoch wouldn't have gotten published if his terminology didn't mesh with the accepted terms? Do you really think that scientific articles would get published if they were using the terminology wrong? Do you believe that scientific journals just say, "well ******** it, we don't need editors. They cost way too much money."

Those damn expensive editors. Wanting so much money to make sure that things don't get past peer review.

And furthermore, any article using research that counters established theories or uses new terminology will mention the fact that this is countering established theories or is using new terminology.

Did you see a single part in Dr. Enoch's work that said he was using new terminology or different terminology? No? And it was published? Oh my. Either the editors got very very drunk (and possibly stoned too) before putting him out to print (and the other two studies I presented, what massive coincidence!) or he is using the established terminology and definitions of the scientific field in question. Which, shockingly enough (thick sarcasm is thick), means that the usage of racism and privilege that he is using is the norm for the field of sociology and anthropology. Which means that we were using the words correctly.

I hope this logic isn't too hard for you to grasp. I did my best to separate it clearly. Maybe you need numbered statements?

1: Statement R: Peer review is used to determine if proper empirical methods were followed. If they weren't, peer review rejects your work.

2: Statement X: Scientific journals will not publish anything that does not pass peer review.

3: Statement Y: Scientific journals will not publish anything that misuses terminology.

4: Statement V: Scientific journals require one to specify if a new definition or new term is being applied and will treat your application as a misuse of terminology if you don't specify this.

5: Statement K: V combined with Y means that any new terminology that does not specify new term use will not be published.

6: Therefore Statement A: a journal will not publish a work if it has not passed peer review, is misusing terminology or does not specify that its terms are being used differently (statements K (using V, Y) and X (using R))

7: Statement B: Dr. Enoch's work was published.

8: Statement C: Dr. Enoch's work contained no reference to a redoing of the terminology or the definitions.

8: Therefore A + B + C establishes that Dr. Enoch's work was empirically derived or based on previous empirical material (X using R is true) and Dr. Enoch's work was not misusing terminology and was not redoing terminology (K using V and Y are true).

9: We used the same terminology as Dr. Enoch.

10: Therefore we used the terminology correctly.

The ball is in your court. Address the logic instead of whining and strawmanning.

Quote:

If you think I am racist, by all means get me banned.

I have no intention or care whether you get banned. I just care that you're being a willfully ignorant idiot with no concept of how logic, scientific peer review, scientific publishing or sociology works.

Quote:

You won't, however, because you are full of bullshit.

Says the guy who doesn't know how peer review works, how scientific publishing works, is exhibiting textbook signs of racial privilege and racism yet claims otherwise while claiming a vague background in sociology.

Yeah, you have tons of credibility. Oh so, you never told me what that background was. High school sociology class? Sociology class from a degree mill college? Or did you learn it from a bum on the street?

Quote:

Again, anyone is free to try to prove me wrong.

Already did. You provided poorly formed rebuttals which I addressed. And which you failed to address here. Good show.

Quote:

No one has been successful yet.

This has almost become comical. So, what's that background again? Did you pay the bum in liquor? Or sandwiches?  

[Recursive Paradox]

TeaDidikai

Welcome.

Is there anything still up in the air?

Not currently. I'm going to take the ideas we discussed and start extending them and putting them into a slightly more polished format.

Then I'll bring them back for discussion and we'll go from there.

CuAnnan

Sociological definition of Racism, provided by Wikipedia, heavily cited and supported
You are a racist.
There is no more arguing to be done about this. It is the plain and simple truth.

I completely forgot about Wikipedia. That makes me a bad netizen. crying

@Fiddler: I mostly agree with AngryRobots on this. I think that rights movements have a responsibility to fight for our rights but vengeance isn't really viable because the people who are around now didn't put these things into motion. We can address their engagement of privilege and their discriminatory, -ism enforcing actions right now, but that doesn't really have much to do with their ancestors. It's very much a present time issue of a lack of empathy, a severe amount of entitlement and willful ignorance (or sometimes just standard ignorance)  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

Here's a stupid question, how much right to whining does someone have for wrongs inflicted upon their ancestors?
I'm not talking about avenging, and I'm not talking about seeking to have history set strait on the matter, I'm talking about siting wrongs done to ancestors as grounds for their own lack of activity. Beyound that, what about group victimization? For example, do all persons of African heritage living in the U.S. have a right to vengeance/justice against the Dutch who brought some African slaves over? Or, do all members of the GLBT community have rights against the French for the Vichy regimes active support of round ups during WW2?

It depends.

I know that the jewelry and other precious possessions stolen from my family as they were sent to their deaths is never going to be returned to me or my children or their children. That said, we are seeing stolen artwork returned to Jewish families. I consider that a good thing. That kind of restoration is the only thing I can think about as far as group victimization goes.

It's hard for me to figure out where the boundary falls. Is not the systematic persecution of the Rroma the source of modern entitlement? The reason why everyone knows that the N~ word is a slur is because we're educated on the matter in school. The reason most don't know the G~ word is a slur is because it's culturally acceptable in most parts of the world to engage in horrible behavior towards the Rroma- and decades after the Jim Crow Laws were taken off the books, Anti-Rroma laws in the US remained- as recently as last year there were laws in NJ.

What more can we do but educate? I would never deem it appropriate to track down the decedents of Slave Owners who held Rroma slaves and demand anything from them- at the same time, I have no problem seeking equal education and energy put into the Rroma rights and history in this country that other groups have.

Did that answer your question? I might have been a bit redundant.